Skip to main content

About this Show

FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace

News/Business. (2013) Navy Capt. Mark Kelly; Cardinal Donald Wuerl; panel discussion with Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson, Ed Gillespie and Charles Lane; Dr. Sam Spagnolo. (CC) (Stereo)




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Virtual Ch. 760 (FOX NEWS HD)






North Korea 12, South Korea 10, Francis 8, Washington 7, Us 7, United States 4, China 4, Vatican 4, Campbell 3, California 3, Alaska 3, Ronald Reagan 3, Obama 2, Harry Reid 2, Marco Rubio 2, Gabby 2, Vons 2, Cardinal Wuerl 2, Diabetes 2, Cardinal 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX News    FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace    News/Business.  (2013) Navy Capt. Mark Kelly; Cardinal  
   Donald Wuerl; panel discussion with Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson,...  

    March 31, 2013
    3:00 - 4:00pm PDT  

>> chris: i'm chris wallace. the debate over gun control heats up. 100 days after newtown you, congress gets ready to vote on new measures to prevent mass shootings. but is the call for action starting to fade? we'll ask a leading voice in the debate, former astronaut mark kelly, husband of gabby giffords. then, are how will the new pope change the catholic church? as the world celebrates easter pope francis must shepherd the church out of scandal. we will talk with the archbishop of washington.
plus, north korea enters a state of war against south korea. we will ask our sunday panel have the firey threats reached the danger point? and our power player of the week, 9 untold story of how a doctor saved the life of ronald reagan. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: hello again and happy easter from hannon: andnda ooton arom fox news in washington. after months of debate, the senate is finally ready to vote on new gun control legislation. one of the people at the center of the issue is mark kelly, retired astronaut and navy captain and the husband of former congress woman gabby giffords who was shot two years ago. captain kelly joins us from tucson, arizona. after newtown there was internationalout rage over -- national outrage over the acts of mass violence but that has begun to change. cbs has a new poll just aicaler the massacre 57% supported
stricter gun controls and now that is down to 47% and harry reid says the bill he was introduce the week after next won't include a ban on assault we to vons and won't include a limit on high capacity magazines. question, shortages should president obama have moved faster to bring this to a vote before the call for action began to fade? >> well, i think aicaler something like 20 first graders being murdered in the classrooms, it is important to take action. and the american people are demanding action now. the teamline of that, you know, sometimes especially with a polarized congress these things can take a long time. but it is clear and you say that there is less support. i want to address that for a second. when you use words l9pe gun control, you know, gun control doesn't poll very well but we do know that over 90% of americans support a universal background check and this is
incredible momentum in congress and around the nation to get it done. >> chris: you say incredible momentum. five republican senators say that they are going to filibuster any additional gun restrictions. we have them up on the screen. what do you say for instance to marco rubio and rand plsl? >> welort first i wounal say o marco rubio that 94% of his con at thiconstituents support a universal bacnd.round check. for senator rand paul it is 83% in kentucky. they should listen to their constituents and certainly shouldn't be he getting in the way of the process which is to debate the bill and to vote on the bill. i mean that doesn't make any sense. and i imagine that at some point if they actually do this that their constituents will honal them accountable for the actions. >> chris: why it you think there is in the polls -- one, we see diminished support.
works we see harry reid who is the senate majority leader and is not going to include the high c to vacity magazines or assault weapons ban in the bill. he says in the asslslt weapons ban it wounal n't get 4083otes, let alone 60. what is going on? >> certainly in this country we have a83ery powerful gun lobby and the leadership of the n.r.a. has done a good job over many, many years of controlling the debate on this issue. one thing that is different now is the fact that we had 20 first graders murdered in a classroom along with six educators. i mean that is unahiceptacontrd the american people want something done on this. 912% of americans -- 92--of americans support a universal background check and 74% of n.r.a. members. i wounal hope at some point tt the leadership of the n.r.a. would just listen to their membership on this iss mo. >> chris: we will get to the background check in a second. one last question about the senate.
repucontricans say they will or an alternative bill that would crack down on gun trafficking and wounal beef uysschool safy that would not include the background check or assault we to vons ban. what do you think of what is called the grassley alternative? >> well, you know, i think it is a mistake. any bill that does not include a universal background check is a mistake. it is the most common sense thing that we can do to prevent criminals and the mean mentalll from having ahicess to weapons. the system right now, 40% of all americans buy a gun without a bacnd.round check. that is probacontry where mostf the criminals and mentally ill are going. we know from a poll that has been done with criminals in prison over 80% of them get them through that loophole. it wounal be a mistake not to address the thing that 92% of american househonal s support d om % of ncontrepon. members sus you port which is the universal background check.
>> chris: let's pick up on that because the main feature of what is in the senate bill and what you are pushing and are pushing tes,ay is the uradversl background check. this week or rather recently a usew weeks athink you went to n store in the arizona area and bought a .45 caliber handgun and aicalerwards the discussed the bacnd.round check you had o go through with your wife gabby. leof ths take a look. >> it was83ery easy to do. took like five minutes. >> five minutes. >> make sure or aerybes,y has o get a bacnd.round check before buying a gun to make sure that criminals and the mentally ill can't get one. >> uradversal background check. >> yes. >> chris: what do you think that showed? >> welort you know, we went in there, my executive director, the e>cutive director of our orgaradzation and in five minutes and 36 seconds is the time it took to fill out one ce of p to ver. you only have to fill out one side and for it to be submitted to the bacnd.round check s9wotm
and get an answeeap five minutes and 36 seconds. what it shows you is that it is not the burden that the ncontr. leadership says what a background check is. a simple common sens sense thio to make sure that criminals and mentally ill can't have ahicess to firearms. >> chris: leof ths talk about t because in gabby's case the shooter had been suspended from college because he was deemed to be a threat to himself and others. he went to a gun store and he thinkt a gun. randssed a background check. and yet he was able then, of course, to go out and shoot ga or y and 18 other people. and the n.r.a. says the problem, the procontrem with te background check is that the kind of mental health information for instance in loffner's case dnstsnals get
that should have been in the system. he should have if we had a system, if we approved the system, he would be rejected. there is the records loophole but there is the loophole that would allow him to go to a gun show or on the internet and buy a gun we need to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from doing that. it is crazy we have a system, we have a system that responsible gun owners get a background check and the option to avoid one is available for anyone who doesn't want to do it.
it is a crazy system. >>chris: doesn't the n.r.a. have a point, if you expand the background check don't you have to make sure that mental health information gets in the system or otherwise it is a waste of time? >> absolutely they have a point. they are right on that issue. we need to encourage states to include the mental health records. after virginia tech, virginia was one of the worst states. after what happened there, they are really, really good about getting the records to the federal government so i'm encouraging, i would love to be able to work with the help of the n.r.a. and the united states senate and the house of representatives to make sure we get the records in the system and close the gun show and private seller loophole like 92 percent of americans want, like 74 percent of n.r.a. member want. >>chris: the big hold up in the senate or the background check is if you do expand it to include gun shows and private sales, do the people who sale
the guns have to keep private records, keep records of the sales? as you know the n.r.a. seas if they have to do what licensed dealers do, they could be used to form a national registry which could be used to confiscate people's bounds. how do you respond? >> i don't think it is logical. right now, when you buy a gun in a gun store like i did, there is a record that remains with the gun store. it is not a record with the federal government. it is not a record that will one day lead to a national registry or gun confiscation. the system currently works with the federally licensed firearms dealers. there is no reason that same system cannot work with the gun show and the private seller. of course, this is an issue for many, for some republican senators and it is something that can be worked on. we have a lot of smart members in the senate. they can figure out a compromise on this issue.
>>chris: arizona officials released a lot of records about the man who shot gabby and 18 others. his parents knew he was deep jimenezed and tested him for drugs but they did not send him to get help. what do you have to say after learning all of this to his parents? >> certainly as a parent myself, it is a tragic thing that they went through, as well. it would have been an entirely different situation, however, if he would have gotten some mental health, gotten an evaluation and certainly if his case when he is taking medicine he is not as psychotic as without the medicine. this would clearly not have happened if he had proper mental health treatment. but you cannot go back in time. the only thing we can do is move forward and try to make sure the
dangerously mentally ill are not only getting treatment for their mental illness but make sure they don't have access to guns, make sure criminals don't have access to guns. our organization, americans for responsible solutions are focused on this each day, to make sure we fix this problem and we address gun violence in the country. >>chris: after newtown there was a lot of talk about making it easier for authorities, a school, or a family, to commit a jarrod loughner or an adam lanza the newtown shooter before they got access to guns and acted out in this horrible way but that seems to have been forgotten in the debate about gun control. >> i don't know if it is forgotten. certainly, the debate in the senate is going to include some aspect of hope for the mentally ill.
what that is...why know what the details will be or how it will turnout. that is a very important component to address mental illness in this country and to get the records of mental illness in the system and make sure there isn't a loophole where the clearly dangerously mentally ill and criminals get access to a gun. >>chris: we thank you for joining us and we wish you and your wife the very best. >> thank you and happy easter, chris. >>chris: happy easter to you. >> next on this easter sunday, we will discuss the new pope and the challenges he faces as we talk with one of the men who elected him, washington's cardinal. wuerl. vo: always one step ahead with an intuitive motion activated lid and seat,
bold makes sure you'll never have to ask him again. i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head.
[ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right.
>> chris: at the vatican pope francis celebrated his first easter mass as leader of the world's one billion catholics. are in t >>chris: today at the vatican the pope called for a political solution to the political war in syria and peace on the korea an peninsula. as he begins the papacy he set a humble tone in contrast to corruption and scandal. but how much does he intend to shake things up? i asked the archbishop of washington, cardinal wuerl what he thinks pope francis will do. >> happy easter and welcome to fox news sunday. >> great to be back. >>chris: from the moment he took the world stage, pope francis talked about serving,
the poorest, the weakest, the least important, on holy thursday he followed the tradition of washing the feet of 12 people and rather than 12 priests as other popes had done he washed and kissed the feet of a dozen young inmates including women and muslims. question: what message is the pope sending about what he is going to do? >> his message is a very clear message that you bear witness with action as well as burden. what he is saying if we are trying to introduce people to the gospel and trying to tell believers how important the gospel is, can't you do that as well, maybe even better, with actions as well as words? that is what three is -- what he is trying to do. >>chris: there is a sense that the church has problems, there
is corruption inside the church, there are turf roles. the pope has to deal with the vatican leaks. why did the cardinals pope francis was the right man to clean things up? >> there probably are a couple of ideas that were going around as we were talking about who might be the next or who would the best person to choose. one, when we talk about the church we want do make sure that we distinguish it from just the operation of the vatican. we were concerned about who will keep the momentum of the new ever evangelist going, who will keep the energy of the nonyoung people around the world going? and someone has to address the administration of the holy see. someone has to look at what is working and what isn't working.
i can't tell you what that means because we didn't have the report. the very fact that we recognize that needs to be some change, that was part of the thinking. can you envision someone better than pope francis? the credibility he brings to whatever he decides in the vatican is going to be enormous. in the meantime, he is keeping the focus on the rest of the church. where there is a lot of good going on. >>chris: on the inside game, how revolutionary do you expect pope francis to be not on doctrine but on changing the way the church does business. >> we seeing signs in the fact he has not moved into the papal residence but he is staying in the residents where we were from the conclave. maybe he is saying there will be
a lot of changes and we going to get back to something that will be a little bit more direct, maybe contact with the pope will be a little easier and that was one of the things that the cardinals talked about, the need to find ways in which there is a lot more communication between the rest of the church and the pope. >>chris: you were this. we saw all of the pictures this is your first conclave, take us inside the sistine chapel, they closed the doors and the 115 cardinals are there choosing the head of the church for 1.2 or 1.3 billion catholics. what is that moment like? >> there is a solemnness that i wasn't prepared to experience so fully. we you hear that door close and you hear it, and the bolt is locked, then you realize, this
is really a liturgy, we are wearing what we would wear if we were presiding at a mass somewhere. not -- this absolute silence and the one thing that you supposed to be doing is listening with your heart. before i went in i talked to one of the older cardinals, he is 90 years old and he came to one of those general meetings just so we could chat, and i have known him for 40 years and i said, cardinal, i'm feeling a little bit overwhelmed by all of this and he said, when you get in the sistine chapel and they close that door just listen with your heart and you will hear and it turned out to be true. there is the solemn oath you take and then, chris, when the
most comes to write a name on the ballot there is no one there but you and i like to think the holy spirit guiding that pen. >>chris: there were five ballots, and obviously the fifth you picked the pope. after a ballot they tell you so and so, pope francis has so many votes. do you know about and talk? >> no, this is the interesting thing. they counsel the ballots and that is rather solemn, three people look at each ballot and go through this whole thing. once it is clear no one was elected, nothing is said. there is a moment of quiet. then you just write another name on the next ballot. it is as if the holy spirit is saying, look, now you know the
direction. we are going to have to whittle this down. this is the powerful part, have your ballot if your hand and you have to stand there in front of that fresco in front of the last judgment and say i call on christ the lord would will come to judge me that this ballot is the person i believe should serve and lead the church. it is really powerful. but there is no milling about, there is no discussion. it is altogether different than anything you and i have experienced in our life here lily. there are no nominations. no candidates. it is all open to the action of the spirit. >>chris: fought like pullinger . the big story in washington, dc, this week, as you know, has been the supreme court's consideration of the issue of same-sex marriage. if the court finds that there is
a constitutional right what will you say to gays who are good catholic whose attend church every week who say or believe that god made them that way and who want to commit to a partner? >> we are always welcoming of everyone. the catholic church welcomes everyone. the catholic church also reminds all us there is a moral law, the commandments of god and we have to do our best to live by them. we announce that from the pulpit and we try to meet people where they are and walk with them in life's journey. the church is probably with 20 centuries of experience, probably the most understanding of the human condition of any institution but at the same time it does remind fought only gay
people but heterosexual people, straight people, you are not supposed to be following a moral law apart from what christ has said to us. we do that all the time --. >>chris: specifically, what would you say do that good gay catholic? >> we try to work with them, whatever situation they find themself in. the goal is to hold them as close the church and to christ and 9 sacraments as possible. a lot depends on how well we are able to communicate, how well we are able to look at each person's life and see where we are. >>chris: you would allow him to continue in the church but you would not recognize his marriage? >> we do that same thing with people who are married, divorced and remarried. we say you are still part of the family but we can't recognize that second maiming.
we do that, and it has never been a great problem. it is painful for all of us to have to realize making our way through life is difficult and we can't always be as perfect as we would like to be the i look to the church to say to me, look, walk as close to christ as we can. that is why we are. come to mass. participate in the life of the church. >>chris: i want to ask you about the legal situation, canada legalizing same-sex marriage in 2525 -- 2005 and there have been problems, a hall agreed to hold a reception for a wedding until they heard it was a same-sex couple. they paid a fine. and what about a catholic university that has housing for married couples, what if it is a
same-sex couple? how will the institution deal with that? does this get a little bit to the issue you have with the administration about the mandate of insurance policies including birth control. >> shouldn't there be enough space if a society as pluralistic and free to work these out in a way so everyone can be who they are and carry on their activists? when we talk about, for example, changing the definition of marriage, there will have to be a lot of adjusting because the whole world has always understood marriage is the word you use to describe when a man and a woman commit to each other for the rest of their lives and generate and education children. once you change that arbitrarily, there will be downstream from that all kinds of questions. we will have to deal with them
one by one as we come to them. that is why the church keeps saying, make room for everyone's faith. the only thing i worry about is someone saying to me, you -- because you believe that sex is intended for marriage, and because you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that somehow you don't belong here, that somehow this is bigotry or this is hate speech. that is what i worry about. there has to be room enough in a society as large, as free as america to make space if -- for all us. >>chris: this is eater which has a very joyous meaning, what is your easter emergency for --
easter message? >> christ has risen for christians but for the rest of the world, easter is a reminder of hope. there is always hope, individually, collectively, and with society, we should never give up hope that we can make things better. that is the story of easter. for the believer it is hallelujah and for everyone else, there is hope, and there is a possibility to make this a bitter world. >>chris: it is a beautiful spring, flowers are blooming and all is right with the world. thank you, cardinal, very much. >> the archbishop of washington, cardinal wuerl. >> threat to peace in the pacific. we will ask our sunday group our serious is the drumbeat of war from north korea?
♪ [ male announcer ] every car we build must make adrenaline pump and pulses quicken. ♪ to help you not just stay alive... but feel alive. the c-class is no exception. it's a mercedes-benz, through and through. see your authorized mercedes-benz aler for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services. through♪♪ cedes-benz ♪ ♪ geico motorcycle. see how much you could save. your doctor will say get smart about your weight.
i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have six grams of sugars. with fifteen grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes.
i think they are very >> they are very provocative actions and belligerent tone have ratcheted up the danger. >>chris: chuck hagel responding to north korea's threat of war to the united states and south korea. now time for our sunday group, business krystal, and republican
strategist, ed gillespie, and charles lane of the "washington post" and mara liasson. kim jong-un was quoted on friday as ordering the missile units to be ready to strike the united states and south korea and this photo was released and he met with top north korean generals throwing the direction of the missiles hitting major american cities. bill, what is his game? >> who knows but it is not good. he has murdered and starved millions of their own people, that regime, and proliferated nuclear weapons. who can forget the israeli strike by north korea? if you discount them, saying they are attainable, they can proliferate weapons of mass destruction and iran and north korea have a relationship and north korea is short of cash and they could sell the weapons to terrorist groups so the threat of north korea is very real.
>> why are they ratcheting up the tension? >> the explanation is it helps stabilize or secure his situation at home and maybe that is true but the degree to which he has created, he could think high is playing cute games like his father and grandfather and they can pull back at a key moment but south korea and japan are sitting there, they is killed south koreans two or three years ago, killed 45 south korean sailors on a ship and in japan they have lobbed missiles over japan. it is dangerous. >>chris: the north koreans traditionally, like to bluster and even by their standards this is extreme what is going on now and that is the concern, that somehow particularly with south korea, and if you have been in seoul, it is an hour's drive from the dmz. they would be right on the front line. the danger is it gets out of
hand? >> and that crazy map behind kim jong-un which shows the lines of the missiles hitting the mainland united states and supposing the battle plan could be a face teas but they can do tremendous damage to south korea and he has announced the armistice doesn't hold anymore and they are in a state war. no one know was he wants to do. why know if he knows. it is a reallyization situation and i don't think the united states has a clear idea of what to do to stop him. >>chris: let's talk, ed, about the united states response because, first, the defense secretary hagel announced we are beef up our missile defense along the border with alaska and this week, or in alaska, along the border with russia, and this week we sent as you can see, a pair of stealth bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons all the way from missouri to military exercises over south
korea. ed, sensible reaction by the pentagon? overreaction? >> a sensible reaction. in addition to that it would be good for the administration to not only boost our own missile defense but to support japan and south korea with missile defense. bill's point is they are nervous, understandably, and doing everything we can to reassure them would be helpful and obviously, trying to get china to engaze in their region in a way that would be helpful with kim jong-un would be important, too. >>chris: i will pick up on china in a second. your thoughts about the united states response and we can do? >> president obama's response to north korea has been throughout the presidency not to rise to the bait and that has been a good approach so far and sending the b-2's sends a strong signal. we are dealing with the third generation of a family business over there in north korea.
the business is building up this whole military structure, building up as bill suggested, the capability to proliferate and conducting terrorist activists. years ago they blew up south korean diplomats. the purpose of the family business is the constants threat, constant threat and menace to extract money, concessions and everything else you can get by blackmailing the other side. whether the end game of the family business is to actually go to war with south korea i court because people are needing to remember, north korea would not win. the least that would come out would be they would be badly damaged. we have a generation of threats and war hysteria to this new
more conservative less concession minded south korea to see what they can extract as they is for 20 years. >>chris: a concern here that does seem to be different is that north korea seems to be ignoring the warnings from their main far and away biggest sponsor, china, which warned the regime of kim jong-un not to make the threats again the united states, and not to make the threats against south korea. why would kim risk alienating the country that literally, talk about biting the hand that feeds you, that literally feeds his people? >> china has never been willing to stop providing other aid to north korea and they is gotten away with it in the past and have been unwilling to risk undermining or allowing the regime to do this. they want to preserve, they
don't want the east european model of communist regimes falling on their border. we spent 1.5 percent of our against budget on missile against but it has been restored just a couple of weeks ago and said we are going ahead on this under both parties but especially under the democrats there has been a haphazard follow through that maybe we should try to defend ourselves from nuclear weapons and not just accept this. in post-cold war, we don't know, they could have many more missiles and nuclear munitions and maybe we should really invest in serious against for ourselves and our neighbors? >>chris: the president has flipped on missile defense. he first came in he pulled back on some of the deployment of anti-missle interceptors and now
one of first steps he and chuck hagel, was to beef up our interceptor system along the alaska coast. >> like i said they should be commended for that but i think president bush made a priority of missile defense and one of the first things the obama administration did was to reverse that. now they have reversed themselves again understanding there was a reason for it, an important strategic reason for it and i am glad they reversed themselves. wish they had not reverted they willselves in the first place. this is an example of why we need missile defense. >>chris: after the historic supreme court hearings on same-sex marriage, where does the issue stand now? ue stand no?
you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment offf >> you want us to step in and render a division based on effects of the institution which is newer than cell phones and the internet in. >> what if they said because we think the focus of marriage should be on pro creation we will not give marriage licenses anymore to couples where both are over the age of 55. would that be constitutional? >> the supreme courts justice alito and kagan differing whether the court should intervene on the issue of same-sex marriage. we are back, now, with a panel. at the end of a rare two days of arguments where do you think the court is on the
constitutionality question of same-sex marriage and, also, on the defense of marriage act which denies federal benefits to same-sex couple would have been legally married in their states? >> it looks as if court will strike down part of the defense of marriage act on federalism. >>chris: a state issue and not a federal issue? >> and the federal government is putting a thumb on the scale by preferring traditional marriage to -- preferring states that picked traditional marriage and looks like they will not impose a universal constitutional right to same-sex marriage on the nation and i hope they don't and i guess i think they won't. >>chris: do you think they will leave prop 8 alone and, say, deny it on procedural grounds, the plaintiff didn't have standing or that they might decide, yes, prop 8 stands or falls in california but it does not impact other states? >> i cannot tell. maybe others know better than i do what the court will do. >>chris: we will go down the
list. one point mara that several justices made that public opinion is changing is quickly in the polls and four states in 2012 legalized same-sex marriage that perhaps the court should stay out of it and leave it to the political process in the state. in that sense, could the supporters of same-sex marriage be victims of their own success? >> yes, they could. i actually think the best outcome for democrats and even proponents of same-sex marriage is if prop 8 is upheld in california but this is no sweeping constitutional finding that same-sex marriage is legal all over the country because --. >>chris: if it is uphelds it means they are --. >> no, i'm sorry, so that it could be overturned. in california they could put up prop 8.2, legalizing same-sex
marriage. it is more meaningful and profound to ajudicate issues by voters and legislatures not unelected justices and it will be more lasting political change if you do it at the box. also it means you will not have a huge backlash. i don't think the court is going in the distribution of legal izing same-sex marriage on national or constitutional basis. >>chris: you are a former chairman of the republican national committee, isn't this a problem know the g.o.p.? as we say, public opinion is moving in the direction of support for same-sex marriage especially among young people, 70 or 80 percent of people under the age of 35 or 40 of all persuasions support same-sex marriage as a legal right but the polls show the republicans, still, overwhelmingly, oppose it, only 27 percent in one poll i saw support same-sex marriage so where does the republican
party go? you have a lot of the base, still, very much opposed but you can see the pendulum swinging? >> i don't see the republican party or most republicans changing in terms of believing that marriage is between one man and one woman. in the context of the debate as in so many other debates republicans have been cast in the negative for opposing something like this. most republicans are also for the benefits of marriage in the legal system that are afforded the protections like for example visitation, hospital visitation rights or survivorship benefits and you will hear more republicans making that point we can do those things without having the government sanctioned same-sex marriage. >>chris: looking at the polls and particularly looking at where younger people are going, would you have any problems in 2016 with a republican party platform saying marriage is
between a man and a woman? >> i wouldn't have any problem with that. a question is, i believe the platform right now calls for a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. there could be a debate about that, but i don't think you would see the republican party platform being in favor of same-sex marriage but there could be a question because the federalism as expect has been interesting and because a lost conservatives have tell for a long-term that roe was wrongfully decided and imposed and the issue of abortion should have been left to the states for people to hash out in a more civil matter. a lost conservatives found themselves arguing in this instance the court should not impose a federal mandate that it is legal. so there has been a little bit of a shift in terms of republicans say we should allow this to inworked out through the states and not imposed by courts
or federally and it will be interesting to see how it shakes out because the platform today says a federal constitutional amendment to ban. >>chris: it sunday just conservatives that feel roe was wrong but ginsburg a justice of the supreme court appointed by democrats, liberal, very much an abortion rights supporter, says she thinks it was a mistake because she thought it moved the court too quickly in this direction and a judicial fiat rather than leaving it to the states to work it out, something they were, working out. >> chuck when you listened to your fellow justices here on the court say, your thoughts about the debate and where it leaves the issue? >> as for the debate, not to sound polly ann-ish, i thought it was interesting to listen to views of someone not running for office and not obsessed with the
short-term politics that are wrestling with it seriously and in that regard it was a helpful occasion in the whole debate. they had the guts to go through a lot of difficult questions about is this really just like enter -- interracial marriage? what are the social consequences? what is crystallizing is a distinction developing between the substance of whether this is a good idea and the process of how we as a country are going to decide. in that regard, i do think there was kind of a tentative consensus that the procedural, the optimum way to handle it is to let the states decide and give more time to the democratic process to work this going out opposed to have be the judicial branch slice through it. >>chris: and for the sake of argument, what about the argument, we don't decide
constitutional rights that way? we don't decide whether schools can be segregated that way, we don't decide interracial marriage that way. >>thence i -- the answer i heard was they were not ready to say this was an absolute right. to say that, without same-sex marriage every state in the union is violating the constitution. >>chris: thank you, panel and we pick up with this on our website and we will post the video before noon eastern time and follow us on twitter. up espn, our power player of the week. ♪ [ construction sounds ] ♪ [ watch ticking ] [ engine revs ]
come in. ♪ got the coffee. that was fast. we're outta here. ♪ [ engine revs ] ♪ shoot. now with the share everything plan from verizon,
connect your camera, along with your smartphone and tablet. all your devices connected by one simple plan on the powerful network. record video. connect more. so you can do more. the share everything plan from verizon. add additional devices like the samsung galaxy camera for $5 monthly access. bikes and balloons, and noodles on spoons. a kite, a breeze, a dunk of grilled cheese. catches and throws,
and spaghettio's. a wand, some wings, soup with good things. sidewalks and doodles and wholesome noodles. puddles and pails and yes, puppy dog tails. for a lunch like this, there's a hug and a kiss. because that's what happy kids are made of. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. >> e, this is easter sunday but it was also 32 of course this is easter sunday. 32 years ago this weekend. a gunman tried to kill ronald reagan. a story how a doctor saved the president's life with what powee week. >> they said we needed to come over the hospital right away. >> that is how sam learned 32 years ago he was about to take on the case of his life. he was the head of the lung department at george washington university hospital.
ronald reagan who had sustained a gunshot to the lung was in the operating room. >> the bullet went through here and lodged over here on the inner surface of the lung so another inch it would have been into the heart. >> chris: he first saw the president when he was eld wleeld into the room. >> i put him on ventilator right away. he was getting some sedation and we finally got him off about 3:00 in the morning. >> chris: the doctor says he did well the first couple days. then things changed. stagnolo kept a diary. >> day five, april 3rd, 1981, i was called at home and requested to return to the hospital. i arrived at the presidential suite and asked the nurse in charge what was going on. she told me the president's temperature was almost 104
degrees and he was not looking well. that made all of us a little nervous about which way this was going to go. >> chris: which you say which way this was going to go, was his life in danger? >> at that point i thought his life was in danger. >> chris: that has to take your breadth away. >> chris: he ordered a battery of tests but the president's medical team resisted. >> things were going slower. >> chris: what did you say? >> if we don't get moving i'm going to walk off this case. >> chris: the other doctors agreed to the test found no sign of infection. he thought that was the problem and put regulate on on antibiotics and within 24 hours his temperature went down. >> chris: 30 years later, what do you think happened if you had not interintervened and given him antibiotics? >> he might not have gotten
better. >> he sat by his bedside for the effects n fweox weeks listening to his stories. there was no mention of politics. >> day nine, tuesday, april 7th. i spoke with the right turn for 10 to 15 minutes. his spirits were good. he continued to tell me various stories at that time about his early days in hollywood. >> chris: months later they invited the medical team to the oval office and thanked hem for saving the president's life. he says his recovery was miraculous. >> i think somebody was watching over me to make sure was going well. i took any extra extra help from the good lord above. >> chris: i spoke with nancy reagan and asked if she had a message for him. she said please send him a big, big thk